what it was intended to do. A great naval expedition was gotten up at the public expense, and made a raid upon the Treasury, and succeeded. Then there was a war made upon Utah; and after immense sums had been spent and everything had been done, so far as preying upon the Treasury was concerned, they found that they had carried the war far enough; and I believe there was not a soldier went to Utah.

Mr. CONNESS. Oh, yes, they did.
Mr. HALE. Did they do anything?
Mr. CONNESS. No, sir.

Mr. HALE. My friend says they went as far as Utah, but they did nothing. That Administration had got to be corrupt.

When this Administration came into power I had hoped-I confess I was green enough to believe that I was acting with a party who were now in power that were ready to put their hand upon these frauds and upon the perpetrators of them. I have pointed them out again and again; and the result is, that instead of punishing the fraudulent perpetrators of these wrongs, they

have turned round and constituted themselves guardians of the Senate, and sent commissioners over the country to see if there was not something that some Senator had done that it was incumbent upon them to rectify and punish; and Senators now act here, whenever they touch any fraud, at the peril of calling upon their heads the vengeance of those who perpetrate it.

Mr. President, upon leaving the Senate, I will say to my friends, that if there is one thing to which we are pledged it is honesty, or at least an approximation to it. There is no party that can stand before the country, before history, and before posterity, that habitually disregards it. Engaged as we are in the most momentous struggle that the history of the world has ever witnessed, and with the consequences depending upon the manner in which this great problem is to be solved, it becomes us, as a nation whose confidence is in the God of justice, that we do not separate Him from the support of our cause. It is an old and true and trite observation, applicable || to national as well as individual affairs, that "honesty is the best policy."

respect the purpose of the honorable Senator from Kentucky, but do not talk to me about any more committees, either standing or special, to investigate frauds in any Department of this Government until you have begun to mark with your censure at least some of those that have already been pointed out. There is a policy which says -and I regret it, but I have met it; I have met it on this floor and I have met it elsewhere-that when delinquencies are perpetrated, especially if an election is about pending, and any of our own friends have been guilty or suspected, that we should tread cautiously and lightly and delicately upon it, lest in punishing some of the guilty perpetrators we do injury to the great cause we have at heart and with which they are connected. Mr. President, such a policy as that is an encouragement to peculators and plunderers and thieves to unite themselves with the popular party, with the majority who control the legislative and executive departments; it is an invitation to them to join that party, because they say, "If we do it we may then steal ad libitum, and no reckoning will be made with us, no punishment will be visited upon us, lest it may injure the party." That policy is subversive of the highest dictates of morality and the clearest demands of patriotism.

Sir, this country can never come out of this great struggle, as I trust it will, as I hope it will, as I believe it will-it can never come out of it triumphantly until we cut loose from frauds and corruptions of every kind and make ourselves clean before the nation and before God. If we hesitate, if we pause in such a work, it seems to me that we are unworthy of the position that we occupy and of the duty which the country requires of us. While you have reports upon reports made by committees of this body and of the House of Representatives, and the evidence is published and there is an end of it, do not talk to me, in Heaven's name, about any more committees of investigation, special or general, but

Mr. JOHNSON. I rise to ask the Senator from New Hampshire what was the result of the trial of the person who testified to whom he has alluded?

Mr. HALE. It is not promulgated yet.

Mr. JOHNSON. Has he been tried?

Mr. WILSON. He has been tried, and the verdict is in the hands of the Government, but it is not promulgated yet.

Mr. HALE. Now, Mr. President, I desire to say right here what I would not have said otherwise. I suppose it is too late at this time to undertake to correct any errors of legislation that we have committed in regard to the authority we have conferred upon these courts-martial, naval and military; but I want to call your attention to a few facts. Commodore Wilkes

The PRESIDING OFFICER, (Mr. Foor in the chair.) The Senator from New Hampshire will suspend his remarks. Further debate on this question at this time is arrested by the special order, the morning hour having expired, that special order being the joint resolution in respect to retaliation.

ENROLLED BILLS SIGNED.

A message from the House of Representatives by Mr. CLINTON LLOYD, Chief Clerk, announced that the Speaker had signed the following enrolled bills and joint resolution; which thereupon received the signature of the Vice President:

A bill (S. No. 363) to amend the charter of the Washington Gas-Light Company;

A bill (H. R. No. 94) for the relief of Isaac R. Diller;

A bill (H. R. No. 394) for the relief of Mary Scales Accardi;

A bill (H. R. No. 622) to amend an act entitled "An act to incorporate the Metropolitan Railroad Company in the District of Columbia," approved July 1, 1864; and

A joint resolution (H. R. No. 99) reserving mineral lands from the operation of all acts passed at the first session of the Thirty-Eighth Congress granting lands, or extending the time of former grants.

RETALIATION ON REBEL PRISONERS.

The Senate, as in Committee of the Whole, resumed the consideration of the joint resolution (S. R. No. 97) advising retaliation for the cruel treatment of prisoners by the insurgents, the pending question being on the motion of Mr. WILSON to recommit the resolution, together with all the amendments and proposed amendments, to the Committee on Military Affairs and the Militia.

Mr. HARLAN. Mr. President, I probably would not trouble the Senate at this time with any remarks on this subject beyond those submitted by me at the beginning of the discussion, had it not been for what seemed to me to be a very strange misapprehension of my meaning. AÍthough I do not deem what may be thought of what I have said here of much consequence, yet perhaps there is nothing amiss in my attempting to set myself right; and in doing this I propose to submit a few remarks upon the general question.

War, Mr. President, is in itself in its very nature retaliatory. No just war can commence by an organized community except for the punishment of injuries received or insults offered by another organized community or civil power. If the party assailed should submit to the infliction of this punishment there would be no war; but if resistance is made, a conflict of arms ensues and war is produced. A repetition of these attempts to punish, on the one hand, and resistance or counter assaults, protracts the war. Each belligerent act is, therefore, in a certain sense, retaliatory. This is true of individual conflicts as well as national struggles Neither can continue unless blows are given as well as received. To avoid unnecessary suffering in civilized countries certain rules are observed by Governments as well as by gentlemen, for the protection of non-combatants and private property. Whatever injury may be inflicted by a belligerent on the person or property of the private citizens of the enemy's country, or on individual combatants, not necessary for the achievement of the object of the contest is unjustifiable cruelty, and hence is said to be in violation of the rules of civilized warfare, and should be scrupulously avoided. Such acts of wantonness should be avoided both because they are useless and cruel and on account of the demoralizing effect their toleration must produce on the nation itself which practices or permits them. But if during the existence of war either belligerent departs from the ordinary rules observed by civilized

nations, the other party has no alternative but to make a departure also so far forth as may be necessary to compel the delinquent to observe them. This is called the law of retaliation.

The honorable Senator from Kentucky [Mr. DAVIS] read some authorities to show that when this punishment is inflicted in retaliation for a departure from the rules of civilized warfare, it ought to be administered in all cases upon the very individuals that made the departure.

Mr. DAVIS. Will the honorable Senator permit me to explain?

Mr. HARLAN. Certainly.

Mr. DAVIS. I said that where the law of retaliation was inflicted so as to produce death, the two authorities which I read laid down the principle that it could only be inflicted on those who were personally guilty of the offenses to which the retaliation was to be applied. But I stated that I carried the law of retaliation further than those two authorities, and that under certain circumstances persons not personally guilty should be punished by death, but not by starvation.

Mr. HARLAN. Then I stand corrected. It seems that the honorable Senator read from authors that inculcated this doctrine, as I stated, but that he disagreed with them, I suppose. It is, however, the duty of the belligerent to seize the very individuals that perpetrate the wrong and inflict the perpetrating the outrages if it can obtain possesretaliatory punishment on the identical parties sion of their persons. If they cannot do so, then it is the duty of the belligerent aggrieved to bring the facts in the case to the attention of the authorities controlling the opposing forces, and demand redress, or the surrender of the culprits for punishment by the injured party. If, however, this is refused, there is no alternative but to resort to what is styled, I believe, technically the lex talionis; not on account of a feeling of revenge, not in wantonness of spirit, not for the purpose of inflicting punishment on innocent individuals per se, but for the purpose of deterring the opposing belligerent Power from a continuance of the wrongs.

This is the law of nations as well as the law of common sense, which no Senator can, as it is supposed, successfully refute either by the citation of standard authorities, or by any correct principles of reasoning. It is the right of the belligerent to correct such wrongs by the use of such punishment as may be necessary to deter the offender from continuing the wrongful practice; and just so far forth a belligerent has a right to depart from what would otherwise be the rules controlling civilized nations in carrying on a war. They have no other alternative. No other mode of redress is within their reach.

This is not only in accordance with the doctrines laid down by standard publicists on this subject, and all correct reasoning, but it is in strict accordance with the practice of civilized nations, our own nation included. It was practiced during the revolutionary struggle, during the war of 1812, and we have resorted to the infliction of retaliatory punishment again and again during the continuance of the existing struggle. Our Government has repeatedly inflicted the punishment of death on rebels, personally innocent of any offense, in retaliation for the murder of Union soldiers by the rebels. Their prisoners have also for the same reason occasionally been subjected to great peril that would otherwise have been in violation of the rules which control civilized nations in the conduct of a war. This was done at Charleston, at Richmond, at Dutch Gap, and perhaps almost every day on our lines of communication to the front. For the purpose of deterring guerrillas from firing into our trains and our transports, our authorities have been compelled to put on board eminent rebel citizens, or rebel prisoners, thus compelling them to share the danger to which our troops were cruelly exposed by these assassin-like enemies while on their way to the front. It is admitted that such acts of retaliation are justifiable and in strict conformity with the rules of war as practiced by the most civilized nations. And as practiced by our authorities this retaliation has proved effective.

This brings me to the case before the Senate.

It is said by the Committee on Military Affairs, in the preamble to the resolution now pending, that it has come to the knowledge of Congress that the rebel authorities have deliberately de

parted from the usages of civilized nations in the treatment of prisoners of war now in their hands, not in isolated cases which might be explained to have occurred on account of the bad character of officers here and there temporarily in charge of our prisoners, but that it has been ascertained to be the rule and not an exception. The rebels seem to have deliberately adopted and persist in practicing the most shameful treatment of these victims of their barbarity from day to day and from month to month. It doubtless has been done for a purpose; as diplomatists would say, for reasons of state, to compel the Government to agree to their terms in the exchange of prisoners. This reminds me of what seemed to me to be a strange misapprehension of my opinions on the subject of the propriety of exchanges by Senators who have preceded me in this discussion. They have addressed me in this discussion as an opponent of the policy. Sir, have I ever opposed it? Have I ever thrown impediments in the way of a just rule for the mutual exchange of prisoners of war?

Why, sir, before a single prisoner had been exchanged, after the commencement of this war, and, so far as I know before any effort had been made to secure the adoption of a policy for the exchange of prisoners, I, at my desk here, drew up a paper requesting the President of the United States to adopt some just means to secure the ex-change of Union troops held as prisoners of war, presented it to every Senator occupying a seat on this floor for his signature, and then submitted it to the President with such reasons as occurred to me at the time in favor of the policy. Up to that time no exchanges had been made. I do not know that this paper had any influence on the mind of the Executive in the adoption of the cartel soon afterward agreed to. I do not cite it for the purpose of making such an impression, but for my personal vindication. I was at least orthodox in practice, and in action took the lead of the very Senators who have so strangely forgotten our early relative position on this subject.

Soon after this a cartel for the exchange of prisoners was adopted, and exchanges were made from time to time, as deliveries were practical, until the rebel authorities themselves refused to observe it. A perusal of the correspondence of the commissioners of exchange, published in Senate Executive Document No. 17, will satisfy any Senator that the exchanges were suspended under this cartel by the action of the rebel authorities themselves. This suspension was not caused by any subordinate of the so-called rebel government; it was the deliberate act of their highest officials. The chief of the rebel government required it by proclamation, the congress of the so-called confederate government demanded it by a formal act of legislation. By these solemn acts of their highest officials it was provided that colored Union troops, when captured, should be sold into slavery, and that their officers should not be treated as prisoners of war, but should be delivered over to the civil authorities of the several States to be punished as felons. I think, perhaps, it will not be amiss to read a few brief extracts on this subject from this correspondence. On page 2 of the document cited, I find, in a letter from "William H. Ludlow, lieutenant colonel, and agent for exchange of prisoners," to, Major General Hitchcock, the following:

"GENERAL: I have the honor to inclose you a copy of the Richmond Enquirer, containing Jeff. Davis's message. His determination, avowed in most insolent terms, to deliver to the several State authorities all commissioned officers of the United States that may hereafter be captured, will, I think, be persevered in."

Then follows the passage from the document cited in the message:

"I confine myself to informing you that shall, unless in your wisdom you deem some other course more expedient, deliver to the several State authorities all commissioned officers of the United States that may hereafter be captured by our forces in any of the States embraced in the proclamation, that they may be dealt with in accordance with the laws of those States providing for the punishment of criminals engaged in exciting servile insurrection."

I will read now from a letter of Robert Ould, addressed to Lieutenant Colonel Ludlow, (commissioner, &c.,) in which he says:

"In your communication of the 14th. Instant you desire to know whether the Federal commissioned officers now prisoners will be released. I have already furnished you with an official copy of the proclamation of President Davis, dated December 23, 1862. In conformity therewith officers will not be released on parole."

But again, I read from another letter, signed "William H. Ludlow," and addressed to " Hon. Robert Ould, agent for the exchange of prisoners," dated "Fort Monroe, June 14, 1863," in which he says:

"Sections four, five, six, and seven of this act"

The act to which I have just referred, of the confederate congress

66 propose a gross and inexcusable breach of the cartel, both in letter and spirit. Upon reference to the cartel, you will find no mention whatever of what was to be the color of prisoners of war. It was unnecessary to make any such mention, for, before the establishment of this cartel, and before one single negro or mulatto was mustered into the United States service, you had them organized in arins in Louisiana. You had Indians and half-breed negroes and Indians organized in arms under Albert Pike, in Arkansas. Subsequently negroes were captured on the battle-field at Antietam, and delivered as prisoners of war at Aiken's Landing to the confederate authorities and receipted for and counted in exchange. And more recently the confederate legislature of Tennessee have passed an act forcing into their military service (I quote literally) all male free persons of color between the ages of fifteen aud fifty, or such number as may be necessary, who may be sound in body and capable of actual service; and they further enacted that in the event a sufficient number of free persons of color to meet the wants of the State shall not tender their services, then the Governor is empowered through the sheriffs of different counties to impress such persons until the required number is obtained.

"But it is needless to argue the question. You have not a foot of ground to stand upon in making the proposed discrimination among our captured officers and men. I protest against it as a violation of the cartel, of the laws and usages of war, and of your own practices under them."

Then, again, to show that they themselves were responsible for a failure to carry out the exchange of prisoners under the cartel, I will read from a letter of William H. Ludlow, lieutenant colonel, and agent for the exchange of prisoners, addressed to Robert Ould, dated July 22, 1863:

"You will recollect that since the proclamation of Hon. Jefferson Davis of December last, and more especially since the passage of the act of the confederate congress in reference to our captured officers, both of which were in violation of the cartel, and have caused in the one case a temporary and in the other a continued suspension of exchange of officers, all such exchanges have been subjects of special agreement between us.

"To avoid the complications and annoyances of these special agreements, I have again and again urged you to a return to the cartel, but, up to the present moment, in vain. On the contrary, you retain in close continement large numbers of our officers, for whom I have made a demand and tendered equivalents.

"Until you consent to return to the terms prescribed by the cartel for exchange of oflicers, I shall not consent to any exchange of them except by special agreements."

But again, I read from a letter signed "Benjamin F. Butler, major general commanding, and commissioner of exchange," dated, "Fortress Monroe, Virginia, January 12, 1864," in which he says:

This Government claims and exercises the power of appointing its own agents to represent its interests, irrespective of any supposed sanction by the confederate authorities.

"No right of declaration of outlawry by those authorities of any officer or soldier of the United States cau be admitted, or for a moment regarded, by the Government of the United States, as it certainly will not be by the persons upon whom such intimidation is attempted.

"I am instructed"

And to this I ask the attention of every Senator"I am instructed to renew the offer, leaving all other questions in abeyance, to exchange man for man and officer for officer of equal rank actually held in custody by either party, until all prisoners of war so held are thus exchanged. I take leave to express the hope, from humane considerations to those confined as prisoners of war on either side, that this offer will be accepted."

In the face of this official record, what foundation exists for imputing blame to the Administration for a partial failure to secure the exchange of all the prisoners of war held by the rebels, when this has not at any time been refused, and on the other hand has been constantly urged and insisted on by our authorities? Here is a standing offer to exchange man for man, and officer for officer, of equal rank according to the cartel. This offer the rebels persistently decline. This refusal rendered it necessary to resort to special exchanges. Then what becomes of the charge of inhumanity? It is inhuman, we are told, not to exchange these prisoners. Why are they not exchanged? Because the rebel authorities refuse to carry out the cartel according to its terms and spirit, which provided for the exchange of man for man and officer for officer of equal rank, and where those of the same rank could not be secured, then the exchange of equivalents, and which provides that the excess found on either side should be paroled. This is now, according to the record before us, the standing offer of this Government. Why is it not

accepted? Because the rebels persist theoretically in treating as felons officers commanding colored troops. For the purpose of coercing this Government to adopt their theories and to practically approve of their outlawry of our officers, they have, as I believe, deliberately adopted and practiced cruelty to our prisoners in their hands.

It may not be amiss to observe here that while exchanges under the cartel were in progress the rebel authorities deliberately violated their plighted faith over and over again by immediately putting into their service paroled prisoners, before their exchange; that tens of thousands of paroled prisoners captured by Grant's army at Vicksburg were again met by our troops with arms in their hands on other battle-fields, where it became necessary to recapture them, or be destroyed or be captured by them.

They also, as it is known, I suppose, to every Senator, objected to the commissioner appointed by the Federal Government. They had outlawed him. He had directed some man in New Orleans to be hung for pulling down the flag of his country after the city had surrendered. They had outlawed him and declared they would hold no further communication with this Government through him; that is, they claimed the right of dictating to this Government who should command its armies, who should be assigned to the performance of this or that military service, and then to dictate what should be the color of the skin of the men mustered into the armies of the United States. 'Unless we would permit them to control the composition and command of our armies they would coerce us into these measures by wanton and cruel treatment of our prisoners in their hands.

If we decline to do this, then they will put our prisoners of war on insufficient food, will expose them to the inclemency of the weather, without shelter or raiment! Here is a departure on their part from the usages of civilized nations which, it seems to me, lays a just foundation for such a departure on our part as will deter them from its continuance. They are systematically reducing our prisoners in point of physical vigor below the standard of efficiency as soldiers. It seems to me, without laying ourselves liable to the charge of cruelty, we would have the right to put their troops in our hands as prisoners of war on a like diet, and give them notice that this had been done in retaliation for the cruel treatment they are inflicting on prisoners of war held by them, and that this diet will be changed the very moment they abandon this departure from the rules of civilized warfare on their part.

But I am told that this is shocking to humanity, that it is very cruel and unchristian. If it be cruel, but necessary to compel them to observe the rules of civilized nations, is it not just; as just as shooting or exposing to the rake of shot and shell or of exposure to guerrilla bullet on railroad trains, steamers, and transports, all of which you have been practicing? Is it any more cruel to put rebels on bread and water to compel the abandonment of cruelty by them than it is to take the life of the individual for the same purpose? But if severe, the adoption of the policy will be indirectly their own act; it will be indirectly the act of the confederate authorities; its continuation, in that case, is in their hands; when they release their grasp of the throat of the victim they hold that very moment the policy will be changed in relation to the prisoners held by us and suifering retaliatory punishment.

But it is said that this would involve the right to scalp, to mutilate, to sell into slavery. I see no connection between the premises and the conclusion. The punishment inflicted may be hard, it may be severe, it may be terrible, for the object of the punishment is to terrify the belligerent party who has himself departed from the rules of civilized warfare. The lex talionis is never applied except to deter a belligereut from such departure. The punishment, therefore, may be severe, it may be terrible, but should be human; it should not be accompanied by any unnecessary circumstances of cruelty. If you refuse to resort to this remedy you will place your troops that may by the fortunes of war fall into the hands of the rebels at their mercy.

But it has been suggested by Senators during the progress of this discussion, that they proposed an immediate exchange of prisoners, and would thus avoid the necessity of retaliation. I have just

shown that this is impracticable, because the rebels refuse to carry out the cartel or to adopt any other just rule which could be agreed to by our Government without dishonor. If these prisoners have not been thus exchanged, it is not the fault of the Administration, but is the wrongful act of the rebel authorities. Now, how will you coerce them? They persistently retain these prisoners of yours and inflict on them inhuman punishment; they apply to them unchristian treatment. You cannot obtain possession of the persons of the identical parties who perpetrate these wrongs. You therefore have no other alternative but to permit them to waste away your armies by this cruel treatment, or resort to some effective system of retaliation. But, then, if they were to throw no impediments in the way of a fair exchange every Senator knows that it is often impossible, immediately after prisoners have been captured, to secure an exchange; they are frequently, on account of the condition of the contest, retained in custody for weeks and months. If, during this necessary delay in bringing about an exchange of prisoners, cruel and unusual treatment is applied to the prisoners of war in their hands, how will you correct the evil for the time being unless you admit, and, if necessary, resort to, retaliation?

I did state, in the outset of this discussion, that I was of the opinion that this refusal on their part to make exchanges was not disadvantageous to us in a military point of view; I still say so, because I think so. It was not disadvantageous to us, first, because we have had constantly an enormous excess of prisoners. When they have had from thirty to forty thousand of Union troops as captives of war in their hands, we have had a number ranging from eighty to ninety thousand, so that when they refuse to return to the cartel and exchange man for man as far as they have men, and then receive the excess under parole, they damage their own and not the Union cause.

But then, again, if the number of troops held as prisoners of war by each of the belligerent parties was exactly equal, I attempted to show in the brief remarks then submitted, that an exchange, man for man, in the present condition of the contest, would not be advantageous to us, because they are now fighting inside of strongly built works, where one man is equal to three or four fighting on the outside. This is too clear to require elucidation, unless some one will maintain that one is greater than four. My allusion to this condition of the contest was the occasion of the charge made by the Senator from Indiana, [Mr. HENDRICKS,] of a departure from humane and Christian sentiments, that induced him and another Senator [Mr. HENDERSON] to favor me with several quotations from the Scriptures. For this kindness they are entitled to and have my thanks. While I have great confidence in the opinions of that Senator when questions of law are involved, especially any question involving a clear understanding of the land laws of the United States, and have an equally high opinion of the legal acumen of the Senator from Kentucky, [Mr. DAVIS,] who also expresses astonishment at my opinions, and would rely on his judgment with great confidence in all legal questions involving the use of clear mental perception, patient research, and inflexible purpose, as well as ability, I say, with great respect to both of these Senators, that if I desired an orthodox exposition of the holy Scriptures, I would not apply to either of them.

I sup

It may be that I have an incorrect apprehension on this subject. I think that is possible. But I have attmpted to consider this subject, as I have all others during my short career in life, according to the rules of common sense. pose these rules are applicable to the holy Scriptures, and necessary for a proper comprehension of them, as well as international law. I know there are such passages as those Senators recited, requiring us to love our neighbors as ourselves, to love our enemies, and to do unto others as we would that they should do unto us. But I submit with great respect for the opinions of others that those passages ought to have a common-sense interpretation; and that seems to me to have been the opinion of the Saviour of the world. I will read a brief passage to illustrate this:

"And, behold, a certain lawyer stood up, and tempted him, saying, Master, what shall I do to inherit eternal life? "le said unto hiin, What is written in the law? how rcadest thou?

"And he answering said, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy strength, and with all thy mind; and thy neighbor as thyself.

"And he said unto him, Thou hast auswered right: this do, and thou shalt live."

But the lawyer not to be put down, proceeded with his cross-examination, and asked, "Who is my neighbor?" This, it seems, induced the Saviour to narrate the following "little story:"

"And Jesus answering said, A certain man went down from Jerusalem to Jericho, and fell among thieves, which stripped him of his raiment, and wounded him, and departed, leaving him half dead.

"And by chance there came down a certain priest that way; and when he saw him, he passed by on the other side. "And likewise a Levite, when he was at the place, came and looked on him, and passed by on the other side. "But a certain Samaritan, as he journeyed, came where he was: and when he saw him, he had compassion on him, "And went to him, and bound up his wounds, pouring in oil and wine, and set him on his own beast, and brought bim to an inn, and took care of him.

"And on the morrow when he departed, he took out two pence, and gave them to the host, and said unto him, Take care of him; and whatsoever thou spendest more, when I come again I will repay thee.

"Which now of these three, thinkest thou, was neighbor unto him that fell among the thieves?"

And the lawyer answered, the Samaritan. And I ask, is not that in accordance with the teachings of common sense? And if a man would not love such a neighbor, would he not deserve the execration of mankind? Well, then, "Thou shalt love thy enemy." How much? What is to be the degree of affection you are to exercise for your enemy? Surely not that degree of affection which you would exercise for such a neighbor as the Samaritan, nor the degree of affection that one would be supposed to feel for a parent, or a child, or a friend; but you are to love him merely as a member of the human family, and avoid inflicting on him acts of cruelty or throwing in his road obstacles to reformation or advancement. In other words, you are to treat him in a commonsense mode, just as his conduct merits.

||

continuance of the war may do that in retaliation to its own subjects which is shockingly in conflict with the teachings of morals, which will at the same time render it impossible for the opposing Power to fulfill its obligations to its subjects without violating international obligation?" As it seems to me, nothing could be more absurd.

But what is this law of nations that is referred to; this international code that it is said may be in conflict with the teachings of morals? Who enacted it and who enforces it? You do not find it in any statute-book, for there is no legislature on earth, and never has been, that can enact it. And there is no tribunal on earth having power to try a nation for violating it. The international code, therefore, was never enacted and never has been and never can be enforced against an independent Power. Then what is this law of nations, this international code? Nothing but the common understanding of mankind. It is a code of morals applied to communities by the common sense of mankind, just as what is called moral law prescribes the rule of conduct to individuals. No one will maintain that in this country, or any other country where justice prevails, you can enforce a merely moral obligation. You cannot enforce what is called the international code. It has no existence except in the minds of men, in the common consent of mankind. It is therefore a rule of morals as applied to organized communities.

Now, then, the Senator maintains that the code of morals as applied to communities in their organized capacity may be in shocking conflict with morals or the code of morals as applied to individuals; that is, to my comprehension, as absurd as to say that truth is in shocking conflict with truth itself; that justice is in shocking conflict with justice!

The Senator from Indiana charged me with cruelty in suggesting that if an exchange of prisoners could be secured on just terms, and could be carried into effect, man for man, that in a military point of view its wisdom might be doubtful. I attempted to illustrate it in this way; that if a thousand men were in a fort-and the rebels aro now in fortified places-it would require four thousand men to capture them, if military science teaches us anything.

Now, I am in favor of loving rebels just in the same way, not as I love my neighbor or friend, but as I would be reasonably expected to love an enemy, a party who is using all the power that God and nature have clothed him with to ruin me and mine. I would not "set down aught in malice," and I would reform him if it were in my power. Individually, if he had his hand on my throat, I would retaliate in some humane way until he released his grasp; and so I would treat the rebels, not cruelly, not wantonly, not in a revengeful spirit, but I would inflict on them just that degree and amount of punishment necessary to compel them to observe the rules of civilized warfare. That is in accordance with my under-oners sent North are added to the army that is standing of the teachings of the holy Scriptures.

But the Senator from Maryland, [Mr. JOHNSON,] as is usual with him when he intends to inflict a severe blow-1 mean of course in a logical way-complimented me by stating that I had cited the law of nations correctly on this subject, that we were under no obligation according to the practice of international law to exchange prison- || ers, that it was optional and discretionary on our part; but that we were under the strongest obligation morally to do so, and if we failed to use all the power placed in our hands to bring about such an exchange we should commit a moral offense akin to a great crime. Well, sir, this is more plausible than sound. Let us see if that Senator, with all his legal learning and force of logic, can maintain that position, even if it were logically applicable to any position assumed by me, which I do not admit. That is as a corollary to the reasoning, international law will tolerate a nation in doing that which violates the strongest moral obligation, so strong and overwhelming that to refuse to carry it out amounts to a great crime! Then I submit, if that be true, that the international code is itself in shocking conflict with the moral law.

I know it may be said that while we would not be under obligations to other nations to treat our own subjects humanely, and we would not consequently be held responsible by foreign Powers for any such departure from the moral code, yet I submit the exchange of prisoners must be miutual, and that one belligerent cannot refuse persistently to make these exchanges and leave it possible for the opposing belligerent to secure the return of its subjects, servants, or employés. Then is it true that one belligerent during the

I will suppose, then, that the rebels have a thousand Union prisoners, able-bodied men, and we hold a thousand rebel prisoners, able-bodied An exchange is agreed to, and the thousand are transhipped from one party to the other. The thousand rebel prisoners sent South go into this fort, and the thousand Union pris

men.

investing the stronghold. If the contest was exactly equal in a military point of view before the exchange took place, if it required four thousand men to carry the work and capture the one thousand, if the chances of life and death were then equally balanced, and the chances were about even that the one thousand in the fort would kill the four thousand outside to the chances that the thousand inside would capture or kill the four thousand outside, and you then throw another thousand into the fort and add but one thousand to the investing force, you lack three thousand men to enable you to prosecute the campaign, and must necessarily resort to what the Senator from Indiana, at the last session, was pleased to denominate the horrors of a draft in order to raise those men. I suggested that probably, even on principles of humanity, it might be better in that stage of the contest to allow the thousand prisoners on either side to remain a little longer in captivity until the battle should be over; that probably it would not be more cruel to allow a prisoner to remain in prison a little longer than it would to expose him and three others in front of battle to the missiles of the foe, unless the other Scripture of which I will remind the Senator is not applicable to this case, which says, "It is better for one to suffer than for many.'

If in this stage of the contest they refuse to return to the cartel and exchange and parole all on their side, I have a right, I submit, to console myself that this wrong on their part is a greater damage to them than it is to us, without being justly subjected to the charge of cruelty.

lf, then, the retaliation proposed in this resolution which is now pending does not violate the international code, if we have a right to resort to

it, if it would in all probability be effective, I come back on these Senators and ask, how can you in good faith and clear conscience meet these suffering men now these rebel prisons, if, as I have shown, the Government has used all honorable and honest means which justice could require, and which it had power to carry out in order to secure an exchange, and has been unable to do so, if you do not attempt to protect them by its adoption?

If those rebels, for the purpose of coercing unjust terms of exchange, treat our troops in their hands unjustly, with a shocking want of humanity; if shooting a man in retaliation for a coldblooded murder has put a stop to murders on the part of rebels of inoffensive prisoners in their hands; if the exposure of their prisoners to the danger of shot and shell in front of our works in retaliation has corrected the evil; if placing eminent citizens of the rebel districts or prisoners of war on railroad trains, transports, and steamers, has to a very large extent put an end to the assassin-like mode of guerrilla warfare adopted by them, we may reasonably conclude that a just retaliation for the wrongful treatment of prisoners of war in their hands may be equally effective; and just so long as the probability is a reasonable one, it is the duty, as I maintain, of the American Government to bring it to bear-a duty that humanity itself demands.

We are morally bound, I will submit, to do everything which we can justly and honorably do to mitigate the sufferings of these brave men that have placed themselves and their lives between us and their and our country's foe. These men who have exposed themselves to every kind of hardship and danger incident to a long and bloody war have a right to our sympathies; and if we sympathize more strongly with the rebel prisoners in our hands than we do with our own brave troops held as prisoners of war by the rebels, and refuse to secure redress of their wrongs, we will have a fearful responsibility to meet before the tribunal of public opinion, when these men return home to repeat the tale of their wrongs.

The resolution, as amended, if the amendment of the Senator from Ohio should be adopted, only provides that such retaliatory measures shall be adopted as are consistent with the international code, consistent with the rules usually applied in similar cases by Christian nations. I can vote for this. I can vote for it conscientiously, lieving that of the two evils it is better to accept the least. If one of two men must suffer, I prefer that it should be my enemy to my friend.

be

I am therefore opposed to the recommitment of the resolution. I am also opposed to the amendment proposed by the Senator from Massachusetts, [Mr. WILSON,] for the appointment of commissioners to negotiate on this subject. Probably I would not, if I did not know personally that this has been attempted and contemptuously rejected by the rebel authorities. Knowing this, as I do, I cannot myself vote for any such proposition. Nor can I vote for the amendment suggested by my friend, the other Senator from Massachusetts, [Mr. SUMNER;] not that I object to any principle that it contains. The enunciation of morals which is there so luminously displayed I doubt not would be indorsed by every humane and Christian man on earth; but I am not willing just now to give the rebels notice that we will not retaliate, and that, I think, is the only logical inference that can be drawn from the Senator's proposed amendment. He denounces retaliation and this cruel mode of punishment, and proposes no means as a substitute for the relief of those in the hands of the rebel authorities except the vigorous prosecution of the war.

I submit to him that this is no new remedy. Is there anybody in default now? In the name of God and my country, are we not doing all that we are now able to do to put down this rebellion? If there is anybody in default let his name be handed over for the execrations of mankind. I know of no such flagrant violation of sacred duty on the part of soldiers or civilians. I believe that all the vast resources of this great country, physical, financial, and moral, are being brought to bear, as wisely as we can reasonably expect, for the attainment of this end. It is therefore a mere suggestion that must necessarily result in nothing practicable, and serve as notice to the rebels that we will not retaliate. In other words, it would remit them to the reproof of their consciences

for the violation of this code of international law, and nothing more.

Mr. SUMNER. My friend will pardon me. It is that we will not retaliate in kind, we will not imitate rebel barbarism. I say nothing further on that point.

Now the point I want to make is here: this information was given to the country eight months ago and more, and it does not appear that the Administration or the parties having this business in charge have made the least effort to mitigate that suffering; and I make that point with this view, to show the necessity that Congress now should take hold, and by this resolution itself direct it to be done. I agree with the Senator from Iowa [Mr. HARLAN] that we cannot escape the responsibility if we do not direct it to be done. If we are satisfied that it is not being done in other quarters, and we have the power to do it, we must do it or be answerable for the consequences. No man can excuse himself by saying it belongs to somebody else. It belongs to each individual Senator here. These men are his neighbors, and his soldiers, and his friends. If he goes by, hangcountry and of God will follow. It ought so to do.

I cannot, therefore, vote for any one of these propositions of amendment. I prefer a slight modification of the amendment proposed by the Senator from Ohio; but perhaps a resolution that I would draw might be equally objectionable to him, so far as it departed from him, as his is to me. I shall therefore content myself, when the time comes, with voting for that resolution, and leave the consequences with posterity and God.

Mr. CLARK. Mr. President, I think the pending motion is a motion to commit to the Committee on Military Affairs. If I understand the position of the business before the Senate it is this: the Committee on Military Affairs reported a resolution in favor of retaliation upon rebel prisoners in our hands for the treatment of Union prisoners in their hands. The honorable Senator from Massachusetts [Mr. SUMNER] moved to amend that resolution by a substitute, striking out the whole of the resolution. The other Senator from Massachusetts [Mr. WILSON] then moved to amend the substitute. The Senator from Ohio [Mr. WADE] moved further to amend by amending the original resolution before it should be stricken out. Then, if I understand the business in order before the Senate, the questions will be these: first, upon the motion to commit; and if that is negatived, then the pending question will be on the amendment of the Senator from Ohio to the original resolution, to perfect it before it is stricken out.

Then, Mr. President, I am opposed to the motion to commit, because it brings us directly to a test vote on the amendment submitted by the Senator from Ohio on the original resolution. Eight months ago and more the committee on the conduct of the war published to the world this very remarkable piece of testimony. I will read it in the presence of the Senate, and of the country if I can, to show the information that was given out at that time to the public. It is the testimony of a surgeon. It is appended to the report of the committee on the conduct of the war, because it had not been received by the committee at the time they made up their report; and it is in these words:

WEST'S BUILDINGS HOSPITAL, BALTIMORE, MARYLAND, May 24, 1864. DEAR SIR: I have the honor to inclose the photograph of John Breinig, with the desired information written upon it. I am very sorry your committee could not have seen these cases when first received. No one from these pictures can form a true estimate of their condition then. Not one in ten was able to stand alone; some of them so covered and eaten by verinin that they nearly resembled cases of small-pox, and so emaciated that they were really living skeletons, and hardly that, as the result shows, forty out of one hundred and four having died up to this date.

If there has been anything so horrible, so fiendish, as this wholesale starvation in the history of this satanic rebellion, I have failed to note it. Better the massacres at Lawrence, Fort Pillow, and Plymouth, than to be thus starved to death by inches through long and weary months. I wish I had possessed the power to compel all the northern sympathizers with this rebellion to come in and look upon the work of the chivalrous sons of the hospitable and sunny South when these skeletons were first received here. A rebel colonel, a prisoner here, who stood with sad face looking on as they were received, finally shook his head and walked away, apparently ashamed that he held any relations to men who could be guilty of such deeds. Very respectfully, your obedient servant, A. CHAPEL.

Hon. B. F. WADE, Chairman of Commillec on the Conduct of the War, Senate United States.

Now, Mr. President, I want to call attention to another fact. Senators attempt to excuse this barbarity, on the ground that it is an occasional occurrence, and they say that sometimes rebel prisoners in our hands are treated inhumanly and therefore we must pardon this. I want to call the attention of the Senate and the country to the design and deliberation with which this has been done. Go down to the prisons in Virginia; go down to Richmond; and what do you find? You find our prisoners the moment they come to those prisons, or before, robbed of their coats, robbed of their jackets, robbed of their hats, robbed of their shoes, robbed of their stockings, and put into those prisons in this naked and destitute condition to endure the hardships and rigor of the season. The Chinese have an inhuman mode of

punishment by which they condemn a man to die by never sleeping, and whenever he sits down wherever he is, or attempts to lie down and go to sleep, or is likely to fall asleep, they put somebody to pinch him and wake him up. Whenever he is sleepy again they pinch him again and wake him up, and so on. Now, sir, which is worse, that refined cruelty of the Chinese, or this barbarity which pinches a man with cold when he would go to sleep and when he wakes finds his limbs frozen? I have here in my hand a copy of a report of an officer who has been confined in Libby prison, just returned, a man from my own State, a man selected as the ranking officer in that command to make a distribution of some blankets just furnished to those prisoners, and he says it was distressing beyond account; so utterly prostrated were these men that the moment you gave them a blanket they would wrap it around them and sink on the floor and fall asleep like children, forgetful of everything in the world, their sufferings had been so intense.

Nay, more, sir, in these prisons at Richmond men have been so reduced by starvation in the rebel capital, under the eye of him whom your wandering commissioners go to plead with for peace, have been so starved, so emaciated, that for the purpose of getting something to eat they make shoes and brooms and do the work of the rebel scullions. And now shall we not retaliate? Not far from here we have a Mr. Pryor. I would take him and starve him until he made shoes and brooms, if they did not stop it.

Such is the treatment of these men in Richmond. Is it accidental? Go with me into the next State, North Carolina, at Salisbury, and take the deposition which was read at your table yesterday as to the treatment of our men there; how when they are starved and are dead they are piled into a cart and carried out and dumped into a ditch like so many dead cattle. Then go with me from Salisbury, North Carolina, to Columbia, South Carolina; go to the very home of the chivalry; and you find the same treatment exactly— not accidental, but devilish, fiendish, and malicious, and contrived and continued. There came to me from the prison in South Carolina not a fortnight ago a colonel from my own State, who had been in the jail there seventeen long months, five months of that time in solitary confinement; a man whose heart beat for your country; a man who went into Fort Wagner with his life in his hands; a man who was taken prisoner there; a man who has been held by these fiends ever since, until he has now gone home to see a family where there is a little boy three years old that he has never seen because of these enormities. And

that man said to me, "For the last five months, Mr. Clark, there was not a morsel of meat in any ration issued to us; we lived upon cob meal or corn meal and sorghum, except I could buy something else. Now, sir," said he, "there are men in that prison who have so suffered that they have forgotten their own names, and they sit around on the ground chattering like so many monkeys." The ration is the same as at Salisbury.

Then go down into Georgia to Andersonville, and you find the same thing, Mr. President, precisely the same thing. From the best information, no less than thirteen thousand men have found their graves from the treatment in that one solitary place, Andersonville; and yet this is an accidental thing, they would have you believe. And if you could catch the men who do it you might punish them! Sir, the rebel authorities do it, and I would visit it upon their army.

Mr. President, we owe it to the men who have gone forth to fight our battles that these things should not be so. We owe it to the friends of the men who have gone forth to fight our battles that these things should not be so. We owe it to the country that these things should not be so, if they can be prevented; and this brings mefor I shall not be long-to the question, can these enormities be prevented? I believe they can. I believe the resolution, if adopted and carried out, will be effectual. Among our rebel prisoners, we have persons from almost every section of the confederacy, and those persons are allied to almost every family in the confederacy. I would take those rebel prisoners, and I would give notice to the confederacy, "The measure that you mete out shall be measured to you, full measure, pressed down and running over; and it shall depend exactly how it shall be done upon you; there are your prisoners; how do you want them treated" "Well." "Then treat ours well. Just as you house our prisoners, just so will we house yours; just as you clothe them, we will clothe yours; just as you feed them, we will feed yours; just as you care for them, we will care for yours. Now, how shall it be done? What do you say?" My word for it, they will not say, "Starve," if you only stand up to it, and let them know you are determined; but if you pass the resolution of the Senator from Massachusetts, and say that whatever they please to do, you will not do anything, they will continue it.

Mr. SUMNER. My resolution says no such thing.

Mr. HENDERSON. I wish to ask the Senator from New Hampshire a question. I ask, unless we have a commissary of prisoners in the rebel States, to visit those prisons and to see the treatment of our prisoners, how is it possible for us to mete out measure for measure?

Mr. CLARK. My God, sir, every returned prisoner is a commissary bringing back word!

Mr. HENDERSON. suggest to the Senator, though, that all exchanges may be shut off. Such a thing is possible as that the exchanges may be cut off entirely, and then there will be no prisoners returning.

Mr. CLARK. All exchanges, perhaps, may be cut off, but the records will show in the end; and if you please, go further, and say to the confederacy, "Unless you let us see how these men are treated we will take it for granted that you are mistreating them," and hold your men accordingly.

Mr.HENDERSON. That is exactly what I want to do. My proposition is to send an agent, a commissary of prisoners, a thing done between two nations for a hundred years. The Senator from Ohio called them "commissioners." Not at all. They go there for the purpose of superintending and sceing the condition of our prisoners; that is just what I design to do, and in case they are refused permission to go, then I take it for granted that the treatment is as represented.

Mr. CLARK. And my objection to the Senator's proposition is not that it is not good in itself, but that it does not go far enough. It is only for a commissary. I want to go further and put into the President's hands and direct him to use every means in his power known in civilized war to do this.

Mr. HENDERSON. That is exactly my resolution.

Mr. CLARK. Then you and I can vote together. I

Mr. HENDERSON. The objection is that I am not in favor of retaliation in kind; nor is the Senator. He says he would mete out to rebel prisoners the measure they mete out to ours. Now, I ask him this question: if they sell our prisoners, as they have sold some negroes, and inflict on them other cruelties, would he sell their prisoners?

Mr. CLARK. I need not discuss that question. This resolution does not propose retaliation in kind, as I understand.

Mr. HENDERSON. I understand that the Senator is urging now before the Senate that we should mete out the same measure precisely.

Mr. CLARK. I would if it became necessary. Mr. HENDERSON. I say it is never neces

sary.

Mr. CLARK. Then we shall not do it. Mr. HENDERSON. Certainly not. Mr. CLARK. But if it becomes necessary, I would do it, and I would make the trial the test whether it is necessary or not.

Mr. HENDERSOŃ. Does the Senator believe it would be necessary to sell their prisoners into everlasting slavery?

Mr. CLARK. I do not. Neither will it be necessary to starve them or strip them. The moment you tell these fiends that you are going to do to them what they do to you, they will desist in self-defense. That is exactly my idea about it. I want to bring them to the trial, and that is the object of this resolution, in my judgment. I want to bring them to the trial, and give them the opportunity; I would say, "There, it depends on you yourselves what you will do, and if you will visit these cruelties on yourselves, it is your own fault; but you pile them on your own head for your conduct."

Mr. President, I say that I believe it will not be necessary, and I will tell you why I believe it will not be necessary. First, because experience shows that when we have retaliated we have never had to go to an extreme. Take the case at Charleston. They thought to deter us from firing on Charleston by selecting six hundred of our officers and putting them where, if we did fire, we must fire upon them. I suppose some of these gentlemen would have stopped the cannon, plugged up its mouth, and said, "It will not do to fire;" but some person having that matter in charge selected six hundred of their officers and put them by our works under the rebel fire, and then said to the rebels, "Now, fire away." They did not fire. It brought about an exchange very quick. So when they took three men in Richmond whom they were going to hang for something we had done, our authorities just took the son of General Lee and two other men, and said, "Now, begin." They did not hang them.

of the man are overcome, and left in that destitute way he enlists to fight you, with tears in his eyes it may be, and with prayers that he may be delivered; but for the sake of something to eat, (and "hunger will go through a stone wall,") he turns traitor to your country because your authorities left him there to starve. Whose treason is it, I pray you? Let us not shirk this responsibility. Let us look at the thing as it is and see if we cannot deal with it; let us at least make the trial, because we owe it to ourselves, as I said, to these soldiers, and to their friends and to the country, that we should do it.

Why, Mr. President, a few days ago I received a letter from a clergyman. He said to me, "Sir, my son is in a rebel prison; he is starving. When he went to the war I and his mother gave him to the country; but the idea is dreadful that that country, when we had given that son to it, should let that boy starve. Cannot," said he, "I appeal to you, sir; cannot something be done?" And that is not a solitary case. Every father who has a son in those prisons will appeal to his Senator in the same way; he will inquire every hour, cannot something be done to ameliorate this condition of affairs? And what are you going to say when you go home? That "nothing could be done." "But, did you try?" "No, sir; we would not pass any resolution about it; we concluded to leave that to the President." "Had not Congress the power?" "Yes, undoubtedly we had the power, but we would not do it." You tell me the country will not bear this retaliation! I tell you, sir, they will not bear such an answer as that, nor any inaction at our hands; it is the other side that they will not bear. They demand at our hands that we should remedy this difficulty if we can; and for me not another eight long months-nay, sir, not another single month, not a week, nor a dayshall go past, if I can prevent it, that I do not give my vote for a measure that I think will afford relief.

Mr. SUMNER. As I have listened to this debate, and noted the various propositions which have been brought forward, especially as I have observed how the original resolution of the committee has disappeared in the process of amendment, I have been reminded of the story which is told by Byron of Henry S. Fox, the same who was afterwards British minister here, and who now lies in the Congressional Burial Ground. Mr. Fóx said of himself, after an illness in Spain, that he was "so altered that his oldest London creditor would not know him." But no illness could work a change greater than has been wrought in the resolution of the committee. Its oldest supporter could not know it in the form which it now bears. The ancient legend of the ship Argo is revived. That famous ship, after its return with the Golden Fleece, was piously preserved in the arsenal of Athens, where its decaying timbers were renewed, until, in the lapse of time, every part of the original ship had disappeared, and nothing but the name remained. It would be difficult to say that anything more of the original

It wants nerve, sir, and we ought to have had nerve when we began the war and all the way through. There is something ineffably mean in asking a soldier to go and fight for you when you have not nerve and backbone enough to stand by and protect him. You ask him to go and fight; you ask him to run the risk of being taken pris-resolution was now before the Senate. oner; and when they get him, you have not nerve enough to say, "Treat him well," and enforce it! No, sir, I want to direct that that shall be done; that he shall be treated well; and I will guaranty, Mr. President, I would almost guaranty it with my life, that when you take the men you have got in your power and put them to this treatment, your men will be treated well. It.is because we have not done it that this treatment has gone on for these eight and twelve months, unrebuked almost, without an effort to prevent it.

Now I want to call the attention of the Senate and of the country to another thing. We are dealing with facts; we are dealing with the case as it is here; we are not dealing with a supposable case; we are dealing with the case as it is; and the evidence is that your men who are prisoners are taken into their hands and starved until they will enlist and fight for the rebels. I want to ask this question, Who is responsible in a great measure for that treason?" "We," says the Sen. ator from Ohio, and I agree with him. You let a man go into these rebel prisons; they starve him day after day; his intellect becomes feeble with his body; you do not clothe him, you do not visit him; the rebels come and hold out to him the idea of food and clothing and comfort if he will enlist for them. The intellect and the strength

The resolution in its original form, as so earnestly maintained by my friends from Ohio and Michigan, called for retaliation in kind—an eye for an eye, a tooth for tooth, death for death, starvation for starvation, freezing for freezing, cruelty for cruelty. The President was commanded to imitate rebel barbarism in all respects, point by point. It was this resolution which I felt it my duty to resist. The resolutions which I offered as a substitute were intended as a sort of "earthwork" in support of this resistance. Perhaps they have already accomplished their purpose, inasmuch as Senators have evacuated their original position.

The question is solemn enough, and yet, as I think of the original resolution, I am reminded of an incident more comic than serious which occurred at Paris while it was occupied by the Prussians in 1814. A Prussian soldier was brought before the governor charged with unmercifully beating a Frenchman, with whom he was billeted, for not supplying a bottle of Berlin weiss bier which the Prussian had insisted upon drinking. The general spoke of the unreasonableness of the demand, and declared that he should be obliged to inflict severe punishment, when the Prussian soldier set up the law of retaliation. "When I was a little boy," said he, "a French